Talk:MJ the Musical

The use of the contentious topics procedure has been authorised by the community for pages related to Michael Jackson, including this page. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Michael Jackson Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Michael Jackson, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Michael Jackson on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Michael JacksonWikipedia:WikiProject Michael JacksonTemplate:WikiProject Michael JacksonMichael Jackson articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Musical Theatre MJ the Musical is part of WikiProject Musical Theatre, organized to improve and complete musical theatre articles and coverage on Wikipedia. You can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Musical TheatreWikipedia:WikiProject Musical TheatreTemplate:WikiProject Musical TheatreMusical Theatre articles

Per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:MUSICALS, casting boards should only be updated when the production in question officially begins performances. Things can change between now and then. It could be cancelled, or recast. Only when the show begins performances is when the casting should be set on the cast boards. Until then, casting should be placed in the productions section. Smitty1999 (talk) 18:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need to be anything like as large - it's a large chunk of the article! There is zero need for every single date in every single theatre to be mentioned. Something the length of the UK production opening will be fine. If anyone wants to know when and where it is on, the links are there for them to find out. Lovingboth (talk) 08:14, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to explain that Wikipedia is not the place to list all the people who have been given tickets to see a show. That's why this section will always be removed. 88.111.215.174 (talk) 19:20, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This page NEEDS MAJOR REVISIONS as it is looking more like a fan page and not an encyclopedia page. Smitty1999 (talk) 13:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have twice added the Guardian's review of MJ the Musical to this page.

It has twice been removed, as, quote, "This was not a review of the play. It was an opinion of the man and does not belong here."[1] and "this is not a review of the musical rather the author's personal feelings about Jackson". [2]

The Guardian is a reliable secondary source for cultural commentary on Wikipedia. We don't get to disregard reliable sources because we personally dislike the review. That's an obvious WP:POV problem. The review should be restored. Popcornfud (talk) 19:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly support this. Completely invalid removal rationale. Sergecross73 msg me 20:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how "and was troubled by the sexual abuse allegations against Jackson." is a review of the musical? There is absolutely nothing about the allegations in the musical. That quote is nothing but her personal opinion about the allegations, not in any way a critical response to the musical, or cultural commentary for that matter. Under WP:ONUS and WP:UNDUEit's perfectly reasonable to exclude the personal opinion of an author about a different subject. castorbailey (talk) 01:43, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. The things that happen in actor/musicians personal life affects perception of their art. There's simply no way around that one. We are not part of Jackson's PR team cleaning up negative publicity. That might work on fansites and social media, but not on Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 16:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. In this context, there is no difference between review and opinion. The whole point of a critical reception section is to summarize the published opinions from professional writers. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 23:03, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The point of critical response to the musical should be to include reviews of the musical itself not any and all opportunity some anti-Jackson writer at any paper used to express their opinion about the allegations. Which again, have nothing to do with the musical. By this token you could add every part of every article where someone complained about Jackson himself over the allegations and also talked about the musical. It's not WP:POV, it's that the part popcorn chose was specifically about Jackson personally and the author's personal feelings about Jackson personally. That does not have a place on this page which is supposed to be about the musical only. castorbailey (talk) 01:32, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop WP:BLUDGEONing this discussion. The musical is about Michael Jackson, so of course a prominent point in his life is inextricably tied to the musical, for a reviewer watching in 2024. You don't get to simply invalidate a reliable source because you disagree with the author. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 02:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disregard the first point, I see you removed your comment. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 02:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two replies hardly qualify as bludgeoning I deleted a third one as I saw it better to make a direct reply. Your position is that any article that says anything related to Jackson and the musical should be included here as a "critical response" to the musical? There is no wiki rule that everything ever published by a reliable source must be included in any page. Check WP:ONUS. castorbailey (talk) 02:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no question about the reliability of the source. However, the show set it prior to the Dangerous World tour (June 1992). How in the hell does this sterilize the sexual allegations leveled against him in 1993? The “review” is not about the show, the acting, the story, the production, nothing! It’s about her personal mental issues she has over the man himself. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and it doesn’t stop applying here because you want it to.TruthGuardians (talk) 01:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is plenty said in the review which is clearly about the play itself; in fact, the parts about it ignoring the allegations are far less than this would imply. It's perfectly valid to include. I don't want to assume bias on the part of the editor here, but TruthGuardians does have an extensive history of editing Michael Jackson-related articles, including at least one abuse report, and I am aware that Michael Jackson fans often get very defensive regarding the allegations against the man, so I can't help but see what looks like bias getting in the way of good editing. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 11:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the editor(s) adding the review were including the part about the allegations, then perhaps that should be left out. Consider at least whether there's undue weight in mentioning that; if just one review is bringing it up then just how relevant is it to this article? But that it's mentioned briefly in the review is no reason to invalidate the entire article, especially not from a source as reputable as The Guardian. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 11:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The musical, objectively, is not about everything Michael Jackson but only about certain elements of his life. The allegations are not inextricably tied to this show any more than his death or marriages or kids or dealings with David Geffen or the sale of half of ATV and innumerable events in his life you would never consider including here just because they were published in The Guardian.

Imagine that as a critical response to the musical we would include "and she was troubled by Michelle Flower's rape allegations against Jackson," or "and she was troubled by how he went about having his children," or "and she was troubled by how Jackson obtained the ATV catalogue"? Israell (talk) 05:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of the "critical response" section is to provide encylopedic coverage of the response to MJ the Musical from professional critics. That means we cover what they wrote, regardless of what they wrote.

By excluding this review, you are applying your own standards about what reviews should be, or how critics should form opinions. That's not appropriate for Wikipedia. Popcornfud (talk) 10:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is simply not the role of a Wikipedia editor. It is not your role to critique the scope of Guardian writers. Go work for Guardian if you wish to do that. Sergecross73 msg me 18:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't oppose the inclusion if the musical revolved around Jackson's History World Tour (1996) instead of his Dangerous World Tour (1992). That's because there weren't any sexual abuse allegations against Jackson while he was preparing for his Dangerous tour. So it's obviously the personal opinion or ill research of the reviewer that the show paved the way to such a future event (sexual abuse allegations). Israell (talk) 18:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's what any arts review is: a personal opinion. Popcornfud (talk) 18:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]